[horatio]

While the "Picard's crew as prophets who tell Cochrane about the bright future" aspect of the movie would have worked without self-consciously putting the words Star Trek into Cochrane's mouth it did not feel forced or blunt to me.

[samwiseb]

The group I saw it with (some of them) seemed to think it was forced. If I recall, I defended it along the lines of "well a TV producer came up with the term, why couldn't a self-employed astronaut?" I don't think it's as staged as some other dialogue in the film (including in that scene), just oddly self-referencing.

[FireDevlin]

I too think First Contact was one of the better movies and for sure the best TNG one. I would have to cast my vote in the "forced" area.

I remember thinking it the first time I saw it, and forever after. Just odd.

[horatio]

I think it is important to keep in mind that the focus of the respective scene is reverse causality, prophecy, people from the future telling the guy from the past what he has to do in order to create their very future or however you wanna call it.
It's kinda like with Max Weber's ideas about Calvinistic predestination being the cultural foundation of capitalism. Like in the case of Cochrane the natural question is, if everything is already determined why not just be lazy and enjoy your life? And I think the answer to this question which Cochrane found when he decided to do the warp flight the next day says more about what Star Trek is about than the uttering of the words.

So yeah, I'd say that the scene works not because of but in spite of the words Star Trek being uttered. The words are just a clue, they just indicate that there is something quintessentially Trekish going on here without feeling pathetic as "astronauts on some kind of Star Trek" has, if anything, a slightly condescending vibe.

[samwiseb]

It's actually a pretty good scene (just watched it, thanks)... I think Troi's line is the only thing that gives it an unfortunately staged "Star Trek 101' feel to the affair. But what do you do; she's there, you have to give her 'something' to say. I'd love to get a Meyer/Bennett MST3K-style commentary on her line though. "Really? We weren't required to know any of that stuff when we made our movies"... "That's because you chased Gene out of your office, you soulless bastard!"... "I did, didn't I?"

I suppose one could argue this story is the foundation of Trek mythology, and Cochrane is the 'visionary' stand-in for Roddenberry (for those who insist on calling him that) who meets these people and immediately 'gets it' as to what they're about... hence his coming up with the same term Roddenberry did when pitching his series. (Just don't tell Moore and Braga; they might take credit for it)

[DNA-1842]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

Was anyone on here bothered by the use of the term 'star trek' in the actual spoken dialogue of ST First Contact? Like, did it seem fourth-wall breaking to anybody? I'm just curious.

I think of the many ways that they could have inserted this phrase that i can think of, the way they chose was the least forced. I think it worked, even if it is a bit fourth wall breaking.

Title dropping a thirty-something year old franchise title is hard to do casually though. They made it important to the dialogue in that scene - the whole scene was telling you about the idealistic stuff involved in Star Trek.

In contrast, they could also have gone grandiose and over-the-top with the title drop. Like Doctor Who did last year - it is still using it as the main continuing storyline: Putting the phrase associated with the premise of the show at the very heart of the story. Doctor Who?

This is more forced, but they haven't shied away from it - which is at least admirable.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

It's actually a pretty good scene (just watched it, thanks)... I think Troi's line is the only thing that gives it an unfortunately staged "Star Trek 101' feel to the affair. But what do you do; she's there, you have to give her 'something' to say. I'd love to get a Meyer/Bennett MST3K-style commentary on her line though. "Really? We weren't required to know any of that stuff when we made our movies"... "That's because you chased Gene out of your office, you soulless bastard!"... "I did, didn't I?"

I suppose one could argue this story is the foundation of Trek mythology, and Cochrane is the 'visionary' stand-in for Roddenberry (for those who insist on calling him that) who meets these people and immediately 'gets it' as to what they're about... hence his coming up with the same term Roddenberry did when pitching his series. (Just don't tell Moore and Braga; they might take credit for it)

I totally agree and would like to add that Troi felt out of place in FC if not all four NextGen movies (and at least I do not know why, she just doesn't work) and that Cochrane was a greedy selfish bastard just like Roddenberry has been according to the accounts of other folks.

It is just an irrelevant sidenote but I like the idea that something great can emerge independent of the qualities and virtues of its creator. Take love poetry that stood the test of time, perhaps the writer was totally insincere and just wrote a poem in order to get laid.
Perhaps one could call it the Frankenstein effect, "you are my creator but I am your master", a creation takes on a life of its own (in contrast to the idea that "everything has to already to be in the box" that is implied e.g. in an omnipotent creator).

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

It's actually a pretty good scene (just watched it, thanks)... I think Troi's line is the only thing that gives it an unfortunately staged "Star Trek 101' feel to the affair. But what do you do; she's there, you have to give her 'something' to say. I'd love to get a Meyer/Bennett MST3K-style commentary on her line though. "Really? We weren't required to know any of that stuff when we made our movies"... "That's because you chased Gene out of your office, you soulless bastard!"... "I did, didn't I?"

I suppose one could argue this story is the foundation of Trek mythology, and Cochrane is the 'visionary' stand-in for Roddenberry (for those who insist on calling him that) who meets these people and immediately 'gets it' as to what they're about... hence his coming up with the same term Roddenberry did when pitching his series. (Just don't tell Moore and Braga; they might take credit for it)

Yeah, I don't have a problem with the overall scene itself or the core point of the scene - just the dialogue used in places of the scene and Troi's line about War and Poverty just simply isn't a line that works for me even though I understand exactly why she's given it to say. Some of Picard's lines exist for similar reasons and they don't really work for me either.

It's kind of like, as you say 'Star Trek 101' and a bit unsubtle. Well, more than a bit.

I think the core theme of the plot just got caught up in all the 30th Anniversary momentum at the time and that it became a kind of victim of that. Not in necessarily the bad sense of the word but just inevitably I think they were at the stage they felt they would do that. I maintain FC is my favourite TNG film while still having several issues of it's own but it's overall good for the most part.

[Livingston]

Check out this article.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/...ht-rises-vibe/

It does sorts have that Dark Knight vibe although my first thought on seeing it was "Neo blasted a hole in the side of a Borg cube".

[SKuD]

New poster:



Wallpaper version for desktop background: